 |
studentJD |
|
|
Students Helping Students |
Currently Briefing & Updating |
|
Student Case Briefs, Outlines, Notes and Sample Tests
Terms & Conditions
© 2010 No content replication for monetary use of any kind is allowed without express written permission. In accordance with UCC § 2-316, this product is provided with "no warranties,either express or implied." The information contained is provided "as-is", with "no guarantee of merchantability." |
|
|
United States v. Bagaric, 706 F.2d 42 |
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit |
1983 |
|
Chapter |
10 |
Title |
Authentication |
|
Page |
453 |
Topic |
The Finding may be based on circumstantial evidence |
|
Quick Notes |
o Defendants were members of a Croatian terrorist group that were convicted of RICO violations. Logarusic challenges the admission of a letter discovered during a consent search of his home after his arrest. He claims it was not property authenticated.
Rule 901. Requirement of Authentication or Identification (a) General provision. o The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. Three Requirements 1. Authentication is a condition precedent to admissibility. 2. This condition is satisfied by evidence which supports the finding 3. The finding must be that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be.
901b(4) Distinctive characteristics and the like. o Appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with circumstances.
Court - We disagree.
Requirement of authentication o Authentication is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter is what its proponent claims.
The Finding may be based on circumstantial evidence o Includes: appearance, contents, substance and other distinctive characteristics of the writing. 901(b)(4). |
||
|
Book Name |
Evidence: A Contemporary Approach. Sydney Beckman, Susan Crump, Fred Galves. ISBN: 978-0-314-19105-2. |
||
|
Issue |
o Whether a finding may be authenticated if based on circumstantial evidence? Yes. |
|
Procedure |
|
|
Trial |
o United States District Court for the Southern District of New York convicted the defendants of RICO violations. |
|
Appellant |
o Affirmed |
|
Facts/Cases |
Discussion |
Key Phrases |
Rules/Laws |
|
Pl - United States Df - Bagaric
Description o Logarusic was convicted for violations of RICO. o Logarusic challenges the admission of a letter discovered during a consent search of his home after his arrest. o Claims it was not property authenticated. |
Court - We disagree.
Requirement of authentication o Authentication is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter is what its proponent claims.
The Finding may be based on circumstantial evidence o Includes: appearance, contents, substance and other distinctive characteristics of the writing. 901(b)(4).
Court - In this case o The letter was addressed to Logarusic and postmarked Asuncion, Paraguay, where Baresic resided. o It began with the salutation "Dear Vinko" and ended "your Miro Baresic . . . your Miro Toni." "Toni Saric" was the alias Baresic o "Toni Saric" was the alias Baresic had used in gaining entry into the United States. o The letter referred to "our people in Chicago," where four of the defendants lived, and it asked Logarusic to contact "Crni," which the proof showed was Ljubas's sobriquet among his confederates. Letter reference friend o It also contained references to "Mercedes," a friend of Logarusic who testified on his behalf and admitted knowing Baresic, and to "the Razov family," Logarusic's landlord. Fact confirmed by testimony that Baresic was a fugitive o Finally, the letter stated that "the Swedes, Americans, and Yugoslavs are requesting expulsion because I am a terrorist and dangerous," a fact confirmed by testimony that Baresic was a fugitive from Sweden where he was sought for the murder of the Yugoslavian ambassador. The letter was from Miro Baresic to Vinko Logarusic o In sum, as Chief Judge Motley found, there was ample demonstration "that the letter was in fact what the Government claimed, i.e., a letter from Miro Baresic to Vinko Logarusic." |
||
|
Rules |
|
901(b)(9) Process or system. Evidence describing a process or system used to produce a result and showing that the process or system produces an accurate result.
|
|
Class Notes |
|
|